This report contains a comprehensive National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance Guide for the Sandia National Laboratories. It is based on the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations in 40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508; the US Department of Energy (DOE) N-EPAimplementing procedures in 10 CFR Part 102 1; DOE Order 5440.1E; the DOE ``Secretarial Policy Statement on the National Environmental Policy Act`` of June 1994- Sandia NEPA compliance procedures-, and other CEQ and DOE guidance. The Guide includes step-by-step procedures for preparation of Environmental Checklists/Action Descriptions Memoranda (ECL/ADMs), Environmental Assessments (EAs), and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). It also includes sections on ``Dealing With NEPA Documentation Problems`` and ``Special N-EPA Compliance Issues.``

This report on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance at Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico (SNL/NM) chronicles past and current compliance activities and includes a recommended strategy that can be implemented for continued improvement. This report provides a list of important references. Attachment 1 contains the table of contents for SAND95-1648, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance Guide Sandia National Laboratories (Hansen, 1995). Attachment 2 contains a list of published environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs) prepared by SNL/NM. Attachment 3 contains abstracts of NEPA compliance papers authored by SNL/NM and its contractors.

This ninth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Chapters 4 and 6 in Hanford Site-related NEPA documents. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) includes information on climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological and historical resources, socioeconomics, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE directives and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site. Not all of the sections have been updated for this revision. The following lists the updated sections: climate and meteorology; ecology (threatened and endangered species section only); culture, archaeological, and historical resources; socioeconomics; all of Chapter 6.

This document describes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents being prepared by DOE contractors. No statements of significance or environmental consequences are provided. This year's report is the thirteenth revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the fourteenth revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is typically presented in environmental impact statements (Weiss) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological, and historical resources, socioeconomics, occupational safety, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and presidential executive orders that are applicable to the NEPA documents prepared for Hanford Site activities.

This document describes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents being prepared by DOE contractors. No statements of significance or environmental consequences are provided. This year's report is the thirteenth revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the fourteenth revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is typically presented in environmental impact statements (Weiss) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological, and historical resources, socioeconomics, occupational safety, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and presidential executive orders that are applicable to the NEPA documents prepared for Hanford Site activities.

This document describes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents being prepared by DOE contractors. No statements of significance or environmental consequences are provided. This year's report is the sixteenth revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the seventeenth revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is typically presented in environmental impact statements (Weiss) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological, and historical resources, socioeconomics, occupational safety and health, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and presidential executive orders that are applicable to the NEPA documents prepared for Hanford Site activities.

This document describes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents being prepared by DOE contractors. No statements of significance or environmental consequences are provided. This year's report is the thirteenth revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the fourteenth revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is typically presented in environmental impact statements (Weiss) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological, and historical resources, socioeconomics, occupational safety, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and presidential executive orders that are applicable to the NEPA documents prepared for Hanford Site activities.

This document describes the Hanford Site environment (Chapter 4) and contains data in Chapter 5 and 6 which will guide users in the preparation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-related documents. Many NEPA compliance documents have been prepared and are being prepared by site contractors for the US Department of Energy, and examination of these documents reveals inconsistencies in the amount of detail presented and the method of presentation. Thus, it seemed necessary to prepare a consistent description of the Hanford environment to be used in preparing Chapter 4 of environmental impact statements and other site-related NEPA documentation. The material in Chapter 5 is a guide to the models used, including critical assumptions incorporated in these models, in previous Hanford NEPA documents. The users will have to select those models appropriate for the proposed action. Chapter 6 is essentially a definitive NEPA Chapter 6, which describes the applicable laws, regulations, and DOE and state orders. In this document, a complete description of the environment is presented in Chapter 4 without excessive tabular data. For these data, sources are provided. Most subjects are divided into a general description of the characteristics of the Hanford Site, followed by site-specific information where it is available on the 100, 200, 300, and other Areas. This division will allow a person requiring information to go immediately to those sections of particular interest. However, site-specific information on each of these separate areas is not always complete or available. In this case, the general Hanford Site description should be used. 131 refs., 19 figs., 32 tabs.

This eighth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Chapters 4 and 6 in Hanford Site-related NEPA documents. Chapter 4 (Affected Environment) includes information on climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, historical, archaeological and cultural resources, socioeconomics, and noise. Chapter 6 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE directives and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site. The following sections were updated in this revision: climate and meteorology; ecology (threatened and endangered species section only); historical; archaeological and cultural resources; and all of chapter 6. No conclusions or recommendations are given in this report. Rather, it is a compilation of information on the Hanford Site environment that can be used directly by Site contractors. This information can also be used by any interested individual seeking baseline data on the hanford Site and its past activities by which to evaluate projected activities and their impacts.

This document describes the US Department of Energy`s (DOE) Hanford Site environment and is numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is presented in Hanford Site NEPA related documents. The document is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many NEPA documents that are being prepared by contractors. The two chapters in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered this way to correspond to the chapters where such information is presented in environmental impact statements (EISs) and other Site-related NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes the Hanford Site environment, and includes information on climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological and historical resources, socioeconomics, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes applicable federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site.

This fifth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Site-related NEPA documentation. Information is presented on climate and meteorology, geology and hydrology, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels, prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) staff. Models are described that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclide transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions. Federal and state regulations, DOE orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable for the NEPA documents at the Hanford Site, are provided.

This fifth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Site-related NEPA documentation. Information is presented on climate and meteorology, geology and hydrology, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels, prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) staff. Models are described that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclide transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions. Federal and state regulations, DOE orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable for the NEPA documents at the Hanford Site, are provided.

This document describes the US Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many NEPA documents being prepared by DOE contractors. No conclusions or recommendations are provided. This year's report is the eleventh revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the 12th revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA; SEPA and CERCLA documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is presented in environmental impact statements (EISs) and other Site-related NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological and historical resources, socioeconomic; occupational safety, and noise. Sources for extensive tabular data related to these topics are provided in the chapter. Most subjects are divided into a general description of the characteristics of the Hanford Site, followed by site-specific information, where available, of the 100,200,300, and other Areas. This division allows the reader to go directly to those sections of particular interest. When specific information on each of these separate areas is not complete or available, the general Hanford Site description should be used. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) is essentially a definitive NEPA Chapter 6.0, which describes applicable federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site. People preparing environmental assessments and EISs should also be cognizant of the document entitled ''Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements'' published by the DOE Office of NEPA Oversight. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) staff prepared individual sections of this document, with input from other Site contractors. More detailed data are available from reference sources cited or from the authors. The following sections of the document were reviewed by the authors and updated with the best available information through June 1999: Climate and Meteorology; Ecology; Cultural, Archaeological, and Historical Resources; Socioeconomics; and All of Chapter 6.

This sixth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Site-related NEPA documentation. Chapter 4.0 summarizes up-to-date information on climate and meteorology, geology and hydrology, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) staff. More detailed data are available from reference sources cited or from the authors; Chapter 5.0 has been significantly updated from the fifth revision. It describes models, including their principal underlying assumptions, that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclide transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions; The updated Chapter 6.0 provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site, following the structure of Chapter 4.0. No conclusions or recommendations are given in this report. Rather, it is a compilation of information on the Hanford Site environment that can be utilized directly by Site contractors. This information can also be used by any interested individual seeking baseline data on the Hanford Site and its past activities by which to evaluate projected activities and their impacts.

This seventh revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Site-related NEPA documentation. Chapter 4.0 summarizes up-to-date information on climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, environmental monitoring, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) staff. More detailed data are available from reference sources cited or from the authors. Chapter 5.0 was not updated from the sixth revision (1994). It describes models, including their principal underlying assumptions, that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclide transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions. The updated Chapter 6.0 provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE Orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site, following the structure of Chapter 4.0. No conclusions or recommendations are given in this report. Rather, it is a compilation of information on the Hanford Site environment that can be used directly by Site contractors. This information can also be used by any interested individual seeking baseline data on the Hanford Site and its past activities by which to evaluate projected activities and their impacts.

This fourth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Site-related NEPA documentation. In Chapter 4.0 are presented summations of up-to-date information about climate and meteorology, geology and hydrology, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels. Chapter 5.0 describes models, including their principal assumptions, that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclides transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions. Chapter 6.0 provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable for environmental impact statements for the Hanford Site, following the structure Chapter 4.0. NO conclusions or recommendations are given in this report.

This fourth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Site-related NEPA documentation. In Chapter 4.0 are presented summations of up-to-date information about climate and meteorology, geology and hydrology, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels. Chapter 5.0 describes models, including their principal assumptions, that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclides transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions. Chapter 6.0 provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable for environmental impact statements for the Hanford Site, following the structure Chapter 4.0. NO conclusions or recommendations are given in this report.

Efforts to implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) include ensuring, and reporting on, timely NEPA reviews prepared in support of projects and activities funded under major provisions of ARRA. In addition to reporting on the status of the NEPA environmental reviews, agencies also report on the benefits of NEPA.

The purpose of this Order is to establish DOE internal requirements and responsibilities for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and the DOE NEPAImplementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). Change 1 has been added to this Order 9/28/2001.

This document describes the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many environmental documents being prepared by DOE contractors concerning the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). No statements about significance or environmental consequences are provided. This year’s report is the seventeenth revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the eighteenth revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is typically presented in environmental impact statements (EISs) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology; air quality; geology; hydrology; ecology; cultural, archaeological, and historical resources; socioeconomics; noise; and occupational health and safety. Sources for extensive tabular data related to these topics are provided in the chapter. Most subjects are divided into a general description of the characteristics of the Hanford Site, followed by site-specific information, where available, of the 100, 200, 300, and other areas. This division allows the reader to go directly to those sections of particular interest. When specific information on each of these separate areas is not complete or available, the general Hanford Site description should be used. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and presidential executive orders that are applicable to the NEPA documents prepared for Hanford Site activities. Information in Chapter 6 of this document can be adapted and supplemented with specific information for a chapter covering statutory and regulatory requirements in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. When preparing environmental assessments and EISs, authors should also be cognizant of the document titled Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements published by the DOE Office of NEPA Oversight (DOE 2004). Additional guidance on preparing DOE NEPA documents can be found at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/guidance.html. Any interested individual seeking baseline data on the Hanford Site and its past activities may also use the information contained in this document to evaluate projected activities and their impacts. For this 2005 revision, the following sections of the document were reviewed by the authors and updated with the best available information through May 2005: Climate and Meteorology Air Quality Geology – Seismicity section only Hydrology – Flow charts for the Columbia and Yakima rivers only Ecology – Threatened and Endangered Species subsection only Socioeconomics Occupational Safety All of Chapter 6.

This Source Guide will assist those working with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 to become more familiar with the environmental assessments (EA) and environmental impact statements (EIS) that apply to specific activities and facilities on the Hanford Site. This document should help answer questions concerning NEPA coverage, history, processes, and the status of many of the buildings and units on and related to the Hanford Site. This document summarizes relevant EAs and EISs by briefly outlining the proposed action of each document and the decision made by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) or its predecessor agencies, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA). The summary includes the proposed action alternatives and current status of the proposed action. If a decision officially was stated by the DOE, as in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or a record of decision (ROD), and the decision was located, a summary is provided. Not all federal decisions, such as FONSIs and RODs, can be found in the Federal Register (FR). For example, although significant large-action FONSIs can be found in the FR, some low-interest FONSIs might have been published elsewhere (i.e., local newspapers).

Overwhelmed with environmental protection documentation requirements, a number of Federal agencies are grappling with the complexities of attempting to integrate'' the documentation requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). While there is some overlap between the general environmental policy objectives of NEPA, and the much more specific waste cleanup objectives of CERCLA and RCRA, there are also major differences and outright conflicts. This paper identifies both problems and opportunities associated with implementing emerging and evolving Federal agency policy regarding integration of the procedural and documentation requirements of NEPA, CERCLA, and RCRA. The emphasis is on NEPA/CERCLA/RCRA integration policy and practice at US Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. The paper provides a comparative analysis of NEPA, CERCLA, and RCRA processes and discusses special integration issues including scoping, development and analysis of alternatives, risk assessment, tiering, scheduling, and the controversy surrounding applicability of NEPA to CERCLA or RCRA cleanup activities. Several NEPA/CERCLA/RCRA integration strategy options are evaluated and an annotated outline of an integrated NEPA/CERCLA document is included.

The purpose of this Order is to establish DOE internal requirements and responsibilities for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and the DOE NEPAImplementing Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). (Hereinafter, the latter two will be referred to as "the Regulations.") Cancels DOE O 451.1A.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) is considering the possibility of replacing the existing Hanford Site 200 Are steam system through a privatization effort. Such an action would be subject to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Section 216 of the Doe NEPAImplementation Procedures (216 Process) provides a specific mechanism for integrating the DOE procurement process with NEPA compliance requirements.

A questionnaire to help aid the Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance in meeting its responsibility to foster continuing improvement of the Department of Energy's National Environmental Policy Act process.

The paper consists of slides used during the presentation. The paper gives an overview of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Energy Policy Act fleet requirements, organizations which must comply, the alternative fuel provider mandate, electric utility option, mandates for state fleets, private and local fleet requirements, state and local incentives program, the alternative fuel vehicle credit program, enforcement, compliance and credit activity databases, and EPACT versus Clean Air Act Amendments.

In 1982, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) conducted follow-up environmental reviews of four US Department of Energy (DOE) geopressured-geothermal design well projects: Dow Parcperdue, Sweet Lake, Gladys McCall and Pleasant Bayou. The reviews determined the implementation and effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation commitments made by DOE in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents prepared for the individual projects. This paper briefly describes post-NEPA environmental investigations at DOE's geopressured-geothermal design well sites and focuses on three environmental problems that were identified and subsequently mitigated by DOE. These were (1) a breech in the brine pit liner and (2) a torn mud pit liner at the Dow Parcperdue well site, and (3) the disposal of potentially hazardous contents of the reserve pit at the Pleasant Bayou well site. The nature of the environmental problems, recommendations for mitigation of each, and remedial actions that were taken are presented.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) developed the Geothermal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Database as a platform for government agencies and industry to access and maintain information related to geothermal NEPA documents. The data were collected to inform analyses of NEPA timelines, and the collected data were made publically available via this tool in case others might find the data useful. NREL staff and contractors collected documents from agency websites, during visits to the two busiest Bureau of Land Management (BLM) field offices for geothermal development, and through email and phone call requests from other BLM field offices. They then entered the information into the database, hosted by Open Energy Information (http://en.openei.org/wiki/RAPID/NEPA). The long-term success of the project will depend on the willingness of federal agencies, industry, and others to populate the database with NEPA and related documents, and to use the data for their own analyses. As the information and capabilities of the database expand, developers and agencies can save time on new NEPA reports by accessing a single location to research related activities, their potential impacts, and previously proposed and imposed mitigation measures. NREL used a wiki platform to allow industry and agencies to maintain the content in the future so that it continues to provide relevant and accurate information to users.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 provides the basic national charter for protection of the environment in the US. Today NEPA has provided an environmental policy model which has been emulated by nations around the world. Recently, questions have been raised regarding the appropriateness and under what conditions it makes sense to combine the preparation of a NEPA analysis with the International Organization for Stnadardization (ISO) - 14000 Standards for Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA). This paper advantages a decision making tool consisting of six discrete criteria which can be employed by a user in reaching a decision regarding the integration of NEPA analysis and LCA. Properly applied, this tool should reduce the risk that a LCA may be inappropriately prepared and integrated with a NEPA analysis.

This report addresses an overall strategy for complying with DOE Order 5400.4 which directs that DOE offices and facilities integrate the procedural and documentation requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) wherever practical and appropriate. Integration of NEPA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) processes is emphasized because RCRA applies to most of the potential release sites at SNL, Albuquerque. NEPA, CERCLA, and RCRA precesses are comparatively analyzed and special integration issues are discussed. Three integration strategy options are evaluated and scheduling and budgeting needs are identified. An annotated outline of an integrated project- or site-specific NEPA/RCRA RFI/CMS EIS or EA is included as an appendix.

During fiscal year (FY) 2010, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Environmental Protection and Regulatory Programs Division (before March 1, 2011 known as the Environmental Management Services Department) staff performed a number of activities as part of PNNL’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance program. These activities helped to verify U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Pacific Northwest Site Office (PNSO) and Richland Operations Office (RL) compliance with NEPA requirements and streamline the NEPA process for federal activities conducted at PNNL. Self-assessments were performed to address NEPA compliance and cultural and biological resource protection. The NEPA self-assessments focused on implementation within the PNNL Energy and Environment Directorate and routine maintenance activities conducted during the previous calendar year. The cultural and biological resource self-assessments were conducted in accordance with the PNSO Cultural and Biological Resources Management Plan, which specifies annual monitoring of important resources to assess and document the status of the resources and the associated protective mechanisms in place to protect sensitive resources.

This document is intended to provide guidance for implementing the Solar Permitting Efficiency Act (AB 2188), which was enacted in California in 2015, in substantial conformance with the California Solar Permitting Guidebook. This document also includes a stand-alone model ordinance that complies with the requirements of the Solar Rights Act, as amended. The sections of this document are organized to first provide the reader with the statutory requirements of AB 2188 and the existing requirements of the Solar Rights Act, followed by the recommendations from the California Solar Permitting Guidebook for substantial conformance with regard to the permitting requirements for local permitting processes.

This article examines several facets of litigation under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) during the 1970s. It briefly describes congressional expectations regarding lawsuits and then focuses on number of cases, characteristics of plaintiffs and defendants, and factors prompting aggrieved parties to seek judicial relief. NEPA cases are also compared to other civil cases as a measure of NEPA's impact on the federal courts. The future amount of litigation under NEPA may ultimately be influenced by congressional decisions regarding the availability of judicial review of agency decisions. Since the Republicans have gained control of the US Senate, and the House of Representatives is now somewhat more conservative, legislative proposals to limit judicial review under NEPA may find more positive reception. Efforts to limit citizen redress in the courts would be unfortunate. Litigation is often a product of administrative failure to recognize the legitimacy of environmental and other relevant values in decision-making. Some litigation, therefore, is unavoidable, but responsiveness to relevant values in the administrative process, and development of carefully reasoned policies based on more than political ideology, are the best ways to minimize future NEPA litigation. 3 tables.

This Notice provides guidance for implementing the mandates of Section 1072 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, commonly referred to as the Bond Amendment. Extended until 9-28-11 by DOE N 251.90 dated 9-28-10. Canceled by DOE O 472.2. Does not cancel other directives.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) sets forth national policy for the protection of the environment. The NEPA process is intended to help officials of the federal government make decisions that are based on an understanding of environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) is similar to NEPA. The California legislature established CEQA to inform both state and local governmental decision-makers and the public about potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities, to identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental impacts, and to disclose to the public the reasons why a project is approved if significant environmental effects are involved. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL), complies with the provisions of both NEPA and CEQA. This document defines the responsibilities and authorities for NEPA/CEQA compliance at LBL.

The NEPA Contracting Quality Improvement Team identified several contracting improvements to reduce the cost and time for the NEPA process. The team`s February 1995 report recommended a series of steps to achieve the improvements, including issuance of contracting guidance. The guidance will be issued in three phases. This Phase I guidance implements the team`s short-term recommendations. It provides model statements of work and a sample schedule of contractor deliverables, establishes a pilot program for evaluating performance of NEPA support contractors, and describes information resources available on the DOE NEPA Web.

This Source Guide will assist those working with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to become more familiar with the Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that apply to specific activities and facilities at the Hanford Site. This document should help answer questions concerning NEPA coverage, history, processes, and the status of many of the buildings and units on and related to the Hanford Site. This document summarizes relevant EAs and EISs by briefly outlining the proposed action of each and the decision made by the US Department of Energy (DOE) or its predecessor agencies, the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and the US Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), concerning the proposed action and current status of the buildings and units discussed in the proposed action. If a decision was officially stated by the DOE, as in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or a Record of Decision (ROD), and was located, a summary is provided in the text. Not all federal decisions, such as FONSIs and RODS, can be found in the Federal Register (FR). For example, although significant large-action FONSIs can be found in the FR, some low-interest FONSIs may have been published elsewhere.

As contained in the Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR 1500--1508, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) directs federal agencies to adopt their own procedures for implementing the Act. The US Department of Energy (DOE) and the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) are two examples of federal agencies with dissimilar but functionally equivalent CX processes. The DOE and USFS were selected as subjects for this study because of their distinctly different missions and as a results of the author`s familiarity with the policies of both agencies. The objectives of this study are to: (1) describe the CX policies and processes of the two agencies, (2) identify the similarities and differences between the two processes, and (3) suggest ways for improving these processes. In performing this evaluation, the authors will identify the components of each agency`s CX process that clearly contributes qualitative information for the purpose of making environmental planning decisions. Drawing from the best elements of each process, the authors will provide some general recommendations that should enable the agencies to fulfill their various obligations to the CX process while concurrently performing early, thorough, and expeditious environmental reviews under NEPA.

Santa Fe pacific Pipeline Partners, L.P. (SFPP) is a refined petroleum pipeline operating in six states in the western United States. Sixteen terminals are subject to the Title V permit to operate requirements. There are many obstacles to overcome, not only when preparing applications for Title V operating permits, but in the implementation phase of the project as well. Each Air District has its own set of rules and regulations that must be adhered to in preparing the application. For example, some districts required the insignificant sources to be documented and included in compliance plans and some do not. The format required for the application varies from stringent forms that must be completed to no forms at all. In preparing the Title V application for SFPP, the author quickly realized if this confusion was transferred to the implementation phase, compliance would be a failure. Therefore, early on the environmental manager instituted a training program. Beginning with a pilot program in one district the author began training managers and supervisors. This program quickly was expanded to include senior vice presidents and technicians. This training session was a one hour of general overview to visually describe how the Title V process would affect the facilities. As a result of this training, virtually every employee became familiar with how the Title V program was affecting the facilities. Engineering and Customer Service is instructed to notify the manager of any and every new project so it could undergo a review to determine if it affected a Title V facility. The field acts as a check of the system. Any change or modification at any facility is immediately under scrutiny for Title V implications. Another obstacle to overcome is to help the facility deal with something that is new and basically a different way of operating.

United States. Bonneville Power Administration; Klickitat County (Wash.)

1995-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addresses the Columbia Wind Farm {number_sign}1 (Project) proposal for construction and operation of a 25 megawatt (MW) wind power project in the Columbia Hills area southeast of Goldendale in Klickitat County, Washington. The Project would be constructed on private land by Conservation and Renewable Energy System (CARES) (the Applicant). An Environmental Impact Statement is required under both NEPA and SEPA guidelines and is issued under Section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq and under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as provided by RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c). Bonneville Power Administration is the NEPA lead agency; Klickitat County is the nominal SEPA lead agency and CARES is the SEPA co-lead agency for this DEIS. The Project site is approximately 395 hectares (975 acres) in size. The Proposed Action would include approximately 91 model AWT-26 wind turbines. Under the No Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed and existing grazing and agricultural activities on the site would continue.

This Source Guide will assist those working with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to become more familiar with the Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that apply to specific activities and facilities at the Hanford Site. This document should help answer questions concerning NEPA coverage, history, processes, and the status of many of the buildings and units on and related to the Hanford Site. This document summarizes relevant EAs and EISs by briefly outlining the proposed action of each and the decision made by the US Department of Energy (DOE) or its predecessor agencies, the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and the US Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), concerning the proposed action and current status of the buildings and units discussed in the proposed action. If a decision was officially stated by the DOE, as in a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or a Record of Decision (ROD), and was located, a summary is provided in the text. Not all federal decisions, such as FONSIs and RODS, can be found in the Federal Register (FR). For example, although significant large-action FONSIs can be found in the FR, some low-interest FONSIs may have been published elsewhere (i.e., local newspapers). The EA and EIS summaries are arranged in numerical order. To assist in locating a particular EA or EIS, the upper right comer of each page lists the number of the summary or summaries discussed on that page. Any draft EA or EIS is followed by a ``D.`` The EAs with nonstandard numbering schemes are located in Chapter 3.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) was enacted on February 17, 2009, to jumpstart the economy by creating or saving millions of jobs, spurring technological advances in health and science, and investing in the Nation's energy future. The Department of Energy received over $32.7 billion in Recovery Act funding for various science, energy, and environmental programs and initiatives. As of November 2009, the Department had obligated $18.3 billion of the Recovery Act funding, but only $1.4 billion had been spent. The Department's Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Environmental Management, Science, and Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability received the majority of funding allocated to the Department, about $32.3 billion. Obligating these funds by the end of Fiscal Year 2010, as required by the Recovery Act, and overseeing their effective use in succeeding years, represents a massive workload increase for the Department's programs. The effort to date has strained existing resources. As has been widely acknowledged, any effort to disburse massive additional funding and to expeditiously initiate and complete projects increases the risk of fraud, waste and abuse. It is, therefore, important for the Department's program offices to assess and mitigate these risks to the maximum extent practicable. In this light, we initiated this review as an initial step in the Office of Inspector General's charge to determine whether the Department's major program offices had developed an effective approach for identifying and mitigating risks related to achieving the goals and objectives of the Recovery Act. The Department's program offices included in our review identified risks and planned mitigation strategies that, if successfully implemented and executed, should help achieve the goals and objectives of the Recovery Act. While each office identified risks unique to its respective areas of responsibility, there were a number of risks shared in common. These included the mechanical and substantive requirements related to the award and distribution of funds; program and project performance monitoring; and, program and project execution activities. In particular, the offices self-identified common risks such as: (1) The inability to award and distribute funds in a timely manner to achieve the goals of the Recovery Act; (2) The sufficiency of monitoring procedures and resources to, among other things, prevent and detect fraud, waste and abuse throughout the performance period of financial assistance awards and contracts; and (3) The inherent cost, schedule and performance risks associated with first-of-a-kind, innovative research and demonstration projects. Our review confirmed that the Department had begun to implement a number of strategies designed to mitigate these and other program-specific risks. Our testing, however, identified challenges to the effective implementation of these mitigation strategies that need to be addressed if the Department is to meet the goals and objectives established by the Recovery Act. At the time of our review: (1) Program staffing resources, critical to the success of all other mitigation strategies, remained inadequate both in numbers and qualifications (certifications and training) for positions in procurement and acquisition, project management, and monitoring and oversight functions; (2) Performance measures for achieving Recovery Act goals such as distributing funds in an expeditious manner had not always been established and included in performance plans, and, in financial assistance and contract documents; and (3) Programs had not consistently demonstrated that previously reported deficiencies, identified through audits, inspections, investigations and other oversight activities, had been considered in designing mitigation strategies for the Recovery Act related risks. As we noted in our Special Report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act at the Department of Energy (OAS-RA-09-01, March 2009) these sorts of deficiencies, which w

An analysis is made of the rules implementing Sections 201 and 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). The act provides that utilities must purchase power from qualifying producers of electricity at nondiscriminatory rates, and it exempts private generators from virtually all state and Federal utility regulations. Most of the analysis presented is taken from the perspective of photovoltaics (PV) and solar thermal electric point-focusing distributed receivers (pfdr). It is felt, however, that the analysis is applicable both to cogeneration and other emerging technologies. Chapters presented are: The FERC Response to Oral Comments on the Proposed Rules Implementing Sections 201 and 210 of PURPA; Additional Changes Made or Not Made That Were Addressed in Other Than Oral Testimony; View on the Proposed Rules Implementing Sections 201 and 210 of PURPA; Response to Comments on the Proposed 201 and 210 Rules; and Summary Analysis of the Environmental Assessment of the Rules. Pertinent reference material is provided in the Appendices, including the text of the rules. (MCW)

The federal environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) can be complex and time consuming. Currently, a geothermal developer may have to complete the NEPA process multiple times during the development of a geothermal project. One mechanism to reduce the timeframe of the federal environmental review process for activities that do not have a significant environmental impact is the use of Categorical Exclusions (CXs), which can exempt projects from having to complete an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. This study focuses primarily on the CX process and its applicability to geothermal exploration. In this paper, we: Provide generalized background information on CXs, including previous NEPA reports addressing CXs, the process for developing CXs, and the role of extraordinary circumstances; Examine the history of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) geothermal CXs; Compare current CXs for oil, gas, and geothermal energy; Describe bills proposing new statutory CXs; Examine the possibility of standardizing geothermal CXs across federal agencies; and Present analysis from the Geothermal NEPA Database and other sources on the potential for new geothermal exploration CXs. As part of this study, we reviewed Environmental Assessments (EAs) conducted in response to 20 geothermal exploration drilling permit applications (Geothermal Drilling Permits or Notices of Intents) since the year 2001, the majority of which are from the last 5 years. All 20 EAs reviewed for this study resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). While many of these FONS's involved proponent proposed or federal agency required mitigation, this still suggests it may be appropriate to create or expand an exploration drilling CX for geothermal, which would have a significant impact on reducing geothermal exploration timelines and up-front costs. Ultimately, federal agencies tasked with permitting and completing environmental reviews for geothermal exploration drilling activities and/or legislative representatives are the responsible parties to discuss the merits and implementation of new or revised CXs for geothermal development.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-1205) for the proposed implementation of a wetland mitigation bank program at the Savannah River Site (SRS), located near Aiken, South Carolina. Based on the analyses in the EA, DOE has determined that the proposed action is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required, and DOE is issuing this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Floodplain Statement of Findings.

This document (Volume II of the National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Guide) contains current copies of regulations and guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of Energy, the Department of State, and the Environmental Protection Agency, related to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

This report examines and evaluates the capabilities and effectiveness of the institutions charged with enforcing the Clean Air Act requirements in the Puget Sound region of the State of Washington. Among the sections of the Act addressed by the study are those concerning Federal grants, designation and planning, enforcement issues, and citizen suits. The requirements for nonattainment areas specified in Title I, Part D of the Act are reviewed extensively.

. Their argument centered on the belief that the surface mining of coal had a large impact on interstate commerce, and as such a strong national policy was needed to level the playing field among coal industries in different states. Clearly this position... IS THE COAL INDUSTRY WORTH PROTECTING? AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF COMPETING ADVOCACY COALITIONS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT (SMCRA) OF 1977 A Dissertation by MICHAEL SEAN PENNINGTON...

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act) was enacted to improve Federal program effectiveness and public accountability by promoting a new focus on results-oriented management. The Results Act requires plans that define the mission, long-term goals, and shorter-term performance measures. Further, the Act envisions that there will be an apparent relationship between this information and specific activities listed in the Department`s budget requests. Taken together, these elements should clearly describe the outputs and outcomes the Department expects to deliver for the resources expended. The objectives of this audit were to determine whether the Department had implemented the requirements of the Results Act by (1) integrating the planning, budgeting, and performance measures for its programs into a unified, Departmentwide strategy; (2) developing specific, measurable, and results-oriented performance standards to which its programs and contractors could be held accountable; and (3) developing the means to collect reliable performance data and to use that data in evaluating whether performance actions produce intended results. The information in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget requests for the Offices of Environmental Management, Defense Programs, Energy Research, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and Nuclear Energy Science and Technology formed the basis of the review.

The Department of Energy's (Department) Weatherization Assistance Program received $5 billion under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) to improve the energy efficiency of homes, multi-family rental units and mobile homes owned or occupied by low-income persons. Subsequently, the Department awarded a three-year Weatherization Assistance Program grant for $94 million to the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia). This grant provided more than a ten-fold increase in funds available to Virginia for weatherization over that authorized in Fiscal Year (FY) 2009. Corresponding to the increase in funding, the Recovery Act increased the limit on the average amount spent to weatherize a home (unit) from $2,500 to $6,500. Virginia's Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) administers the Recovery Act grant through 22 local community action agencies. These agencies (sub-grantees) are responsible for determining applicant eligibility, weatherizing homes, and conducting home assessments and inspections. Typical weatherization services include installing insulation; sealing ducts; tuning and repairing furnaces; and, mitigating heat loss through windows, doors and other infiltration points. Virginia plans to use its Recovery Act Weatherization funding to weatherize about 9,193 units over the life of the grant - a significant increase over the 1,475 housing units that were planned to be completed in FY 2009. Given the significant increase in funding and the demands associated with weatherizing thousands of homes, we initiated this audit to determine if Virginia had adequate safeguards in place to ensure that the Weatherization Program was managed efficiently and effectively. The State of Virginia's DHCD had not implemented financial and reporting controls needed to ensure Weatherization Program funds are spent effectively and efficiently. Specifically, DHCD had not: (1) Performed on-site financial monitoring of any of its sub-grantees under the Recovery Act; (2) Reviewed documentation supporting sub-grantee requests for reimbursements to verify the accuracy of amounts charged; (3) Periodically reconciled amounts paid to sub-grantees to the actual cost to weatherize units; (4) Maintained vehicle and equipment inventories as required by Federal regulations and state and Federal program directives; and (5) Accurately reported Weatherization Program results to the Department. Exacerbating weaknesses in DHCD's financial controls, the Department's most recent program monitoring visit to Virginia, made in 2008 before passage of the Recovery Act, did not include a required financial review. Hence, the financial control weaknesses discussed above were not detected and had not been addressed. As described in this report, these control and reporting weaknesses increase the risk that Recovery Act objectives may not be achieved and that fraud, waste or abuse can occur and not be detected in this critically important program.

Every 100 days, the Department of Energy is held accountable for a progress report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Update at 200 days, hosted by Matt Rogers, Senior Advisor to Secretary Steven Chu for Recovery ActImplementation.

This Manual implements provisions of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) within the Department of Energy (DOE) and establishes requirements, responsibilities, and authority for effecting assignments under the Act. Does not cancel other directives.

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2:Introduction toManagement of theTechno-economicOctober 2013NEPA-Related Public Involvement

Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (Public Law 96-510), commonly known as Superfund, in 1980. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) (Public Law 99-499), which amended CERCLA in 1986, added Section 120 regarding the cleanup of contaminated sites at Federal facilities. Under Section 120(e)(5) of CERCLA, each department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal government responsible for compliance with Section 120 must submit an annual report to Congress concerning its progress in implementing the requirements of Section 120. The report must include information on the progress in reaching Interagency Agreements (IAGs), conducting Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Studies (RI/FSs), and performing remedial actions. Federal agencies that own or operate facilities on the National Priorities List (NPL) are required to begin an RI/FS for these facilities within 6 months after being placed on the NPL. Remediation of these facilities is addressed in an IAG between the Federal agency, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and in some instances the state within which the facility is located. This report, prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy`s (DOE`s) Office of Environmental Management, is being submitted to Congress in accordance with Section 120(e)(5) of CERCLA. It is DOE`s Eighth Annual Report to Congress and provides information on DOE`s progress in implementing CERCLA Section 120 in Fiscal Year 1994 (FY 94), i.e., from October 1, 1993, to September 30, 1994. In this report the words {open_quotes}site{close_quotes} and {open_quotes}facility{close_quotes} are used interchangeably.

Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (Public Law 96-510), commonly known as Superfund, in 1980. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) (Public Law 99-499), which amended CERCLA in 1986, added Section 120 regarding the cleanup of contaminated sites at Federal facilities. Under Section 120(e)(5) of CERCLA, each department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal government responsible for compliance with Section 120 must submit an annual report to Congress concerning its progress in implementing the requirements of Section 120. The report must include information on the progress in reaching Interagency Agreements (IAGs), conducting remedial investigation and feasibility studies (RI/FSs), and performing remedial actions. Federal agencies that own or operate facilities on the National Priorities List (NPL) are required to begin an RI/FS for these facilities within 6 months after being placed on the NPL. Remediation of these facilities is addressed in an IAG between the Federal agency, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and in some instances the state within which the facility is located.

Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (Public Law 96-510), commonly known as Superfund, in 1980. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) which amended CERCLA in 1986, added Section 120 regarding the cleanup of contaminated sites at Federal facilities. Under Section 120(e)(5) of CERCLA, each department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal government responsible for compliance with Section 120 must submit an annual report to Congress concerning its progress in implementing the requirements of Section 120. The report must include information on the progress in reaching Interagency Agreements (IAGs), conducting Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Studies (RI/FSs), and performing remedial action. Federal agencies that own or operate facilities on the National priorities List (NPL) are required to begin an RI/FS for these facilities within 6 months after being placed on the NPL. Remediation of these facilities is addressed in an IAG between the Federal agency, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and in some instances the state within which the facility is located. This report provides the status of ongoing activities being performed in support of CERCLA Section 120 at DOE facilities. This includes activities conducted to reach IAGs and progress in conducting remedial actions.

Title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a new permit program requiring major sources and sources subject to Title III (Hazardous Air Pollutants) to obtain a state operating permit. Historically, most states have issued operating permits for individual emission units. Under the Title V permit program, a single permit will be issued for all of the emission units at the facility much like the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The permit will specify all reporting, monitoring, and record-keeping requirements for the facility. Sources required to obtain permits include (a) major sources that emit 100 tons per year or more of any criteria air contaminant, (b) any source subject to the HAP provisions of Title III, (c) any source subject to the acid rain provisions of Title IV, (d) any source subject to New Source Performance Standards, and (e) any source subject to new source review under the nonattainment or Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions. The State of Tennessee Title V Operating Permit Program was approved by EPA on August 28, 1996. This paper will provide details of initiatives underway at US Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) Facilities for implementation of requirements under the Title V Operating Permit Program. The ORR encompasses three DOE Facilities: the Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP). The Y-12 Plant manufactures component parts for the national nuclear weapons program; the ORNL is responsible for research and development activities including nuclear engineering, engineering technologies, and the environmental sciences; and the ETTP conducts a variety of research and development activities and is the home of a mixed waste incinerator. Each of the three DOE Facilities is considered a major source under Title V of the CAA.

This document summarizes relevant EAs and EISs by briefly outlining the proposed action of each document and the decision made by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) or its predecessor agencies, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the US. Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA). The summary includes the proposed action alternatives and current status of the proposed action. If a decision officially was stated by the DOE, as in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or a record of decision (ROD), and the decision was located, a summary is provided. Not all federal decisions, such as FONSIs and RODs, can be found in the Federal Register (FR). For example, although significant large-action FONSIs can be found in the FR, some low-interest FONSIs might have been published elsewhere (i.e., local newspapers).

The US Department of Energy (DOE) has completed an environmental assessment (DOE/EA-1414) for the proposed implementation of the authorized limits process for waste acceptance at the C-746-U Landfill at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) in Paducah, Kentucky. Based on the results of the impact analysis reported in the EA, which is incorporated herein by this reference, DOE has determined that the proposed action is not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the context of the ''National Environmental Policy Act of 1969'' (NEPA). Therefore preparation of an environmental impact statement is not necessary, and DOE is issuing this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

Signed by the President on February 17, 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) seeks to strengthen the U.S. economy through the creation of new jobs, aiding State and local governments with budget shortfalls, and investing in the long-term health of the Nation's economic prosperity. Under the Recovery Act, the Department of Energy will receive approximately $40 billion for various energy, environmental, and science programs and initiatives. To have an immediate stimulative impact on the U.S. economy, the Department's stated goal is to ensure that these funds are spent as expeditiously as possible, without risking transparency and accountability. Given the Department's almost total reliance on the acquisition process (contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, etc.) to carry out its mission, enhanced focus on contract administration and, specifically, the work performed by Federal acquisition officials is of vital importance as the unprecedented flow of funds begins under the Recovery Act.

The RISKIND computer program was developed for the analysis of radiological consequences and health risks to individuals and the collective population from exposures associated with the transportation of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) or other radioactive materials. The code is intended to provide scenario-specific analyses when evaluating alternatives for environmental assessment activities, including those for major federal actions involving radioactive material transport as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As such, rigorous procedures have been implemented to enhance the code`s credibility and strenuous efforts have been made to enhance ease of use of the code. To increase the code`s reliability and credibility, a new version of RISKIND was produced under a quality assurance plan that covered code development and testing, and a peer review process was conducted. During development of the new version, the flexibility and ease of use of RISKIND were enhanced through several major changes: (1) a Windows{sup {trademark}} point-and-click interface replaced the old DOS menu system, (2) the remaining model input parameters were added to the interface, (3) databases were updated, (4) the program output was revised, and (5) on-line help has been added. RISKIND has been well received by users and has been established as a key component in radiological transportation risk assessments through its acceptance by the U.S. Department of Energy community in recent environmental impact statements (EISs) and its continued use in the current preparation of several EISs.

ADDITION FOR CHAPTER 10 OF THE EA/RIR/IRFA RE NEPA AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. During the Council.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Environmental Protection Agency 1995). Further, the amount of waste disposed) and the impacts of those disposals are unrelated to the percentages of the walleye pollock and Pacific cod

This paper covers several key challenges and lessons learned in a federal agency assignment to educate the decision makers in NEPA and then to effectuate decisions early in the decision-making process based on the information derived from the NEPA process participants and documentation. Many of the key challenges faced by these federal decision makers stem, in part, from unfamiliarity with NEPA requirements and the benefits that can be derived by utilizing the process to support making an informed decision. Secondly, federal managers, at times believe that the process is a hindrance to accomplishing their mission. Lastly, there was a genuine belief that the public and other organizations within the agency should have no part in evaluating or commenting on the proposed action. Using the knowledge gained from drafting and reviewing EISs and EAs, Booz, Allen devised a systematic process that effectively: educated management on NEPA requirements; developed a management tool to guide and integrate the process; and encouraged the early and effective use of environmental and social information into all decision-making processes.

Recovery Act and Energy Department programs were designed to stimulate the economy while creating new power sources, conserving resources and aligning the nation to once again lead the global energy economy.

This Source Guide will assist those working with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 to become more familiar with the environmental assessments (EA) and environmental impact statements (EIS) that apply to specific activities and facilities on the Hanford Site. This document should help answer questions concerning NEPA coverage, history, processes, and the status of many of the buildings and units on and related to the Hanford Site. This document summarizes relevant EAs and EISs by briefly outlining the proposed action of each document and the decision made by the US Department of Energy (DOE) or its predecessor agencies, the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the US Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA). The summary includes the proposed action alternatives and current status of the proposed action. If a decision officially was stated by the DOE, as in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or a record of decision (ROD), and the decision was located, a summary is provided. Not all federal decisions, such as FONSIs and RODS, can be found in the Federal Register (FR). For example, although significant large-action FONSIs can be found in the FR, some low-interest FONSIs might have been published elsewhere (i.e., local newspapers).

The National Environmental Policy Act turns 35 on January 1, 2005! This landmark legislation altered the Federal decisionmaking process. In this issue of LLQR, Ray Berube, retired Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment, looks back at how NEPA compliance procedures have evolved at DOE. Our lead article looks at how the Internet is becoming an increasingly useful NEPA tool. We hope you will ?nd helpful suggestions throughout LLQR on how we can continue to improve and modernize NEPAimplementation.

This study verifies the implementation and effectiveness of environmental mitigation and monitoring commitments made by the US Department of Energy in National Environmental Policy Act documents (Environmental Assessments (EAs)) prepared for four geopressure design well projects, one in Texas and three in Louisiana. The evaluation was based on visits to the project sites conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory staff in August 1982 and April 1983, and on a review of monitoring and project activity reports provided by DOE subcontractors. Subcontractors responsible for drilling and testing activities at the well sites adequately implemented most of the mitigation measures described in each project's EA. Exceptions included the lack of impermeable liners for drilling mud pits at three sites and the lack of a ring levee at one site. Water quality, noise, and air monitoring were not performed as strictly as outlined in the EAs. A review of the data collected to date indicates that no significant environmental degradation has occurred. Additional or future monitoring needs, especially with regard to subsidence, microseismicity, and groundwater and soil sampling were recommended.

Remarks by Acting Secretary Daniel B. Poneman concerning the importance of integrated safety management for the protection of workers, the public, and the environment and successfully implementing the Department's missions.

This Reference Book contains a current copy of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and those regulations that implement the statute and appear to be most relevant to DOE activities. The document is provided to DOE and contractor staff for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as legal guidance. This Reference Book has been completely revised and is current through February 15, 1994.

Recommendations from the DOE Field Management Council (FMC), NEPA Improvement Team, and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for improving NEPA compliance through the integration of Program ad Project Management

Conservation and Renewable Energy Systems (CARES) proposes to construct and operate Columbia Wind Farm No. 1 in the Columbia Hills area, southeast of Goldendale, in Klickitat County, Washington. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Bonneville Power Administration prepared this statement in order to fulfill its National Environmental Policy Act obligations ahead of signing an agreement with CARES.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Bonneville Power Administration prepared this statement in order to fulfill its National Environmental Policy Act obligations ahead of signing an agreement with the utilities that would purchase the Windplant’s power from KENETECH. KENETECH Windpower, Inc., proposes to construct and operate Washington Windplant No. 1 in the Columbia Hills area, southeast of Goldendale, in Klickitat County, Washington.

Funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) are being put to work to improve safety, reliability, and service in systems across the country. Here are case studies from a variety of Recovery Act programs.

This Reference Book contains a current copy of the Clean Water Act (excluding Section 404) and those regulations that implement the statutes and appear to be most relevant to US Department of Energy (DOE) activities. The document is provided to DOE and contractor staff for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as legal guidance. Updates that include important new requirements will be provided periodically. Questions concerning this Reference Book may be directed to Mark Petts, EH-231 (202/586-2609).

The implementation of environmental mitigation and monitoring commitments made for four geopressure design well projects was evaluated. The evaluation was based on site visits conducted in August 1982 and April 1983 and on a review of monitoring and project activity reports provided by DOE contractors. The projects evaluated include: Pleasant Bayou No. 1 in Brazoria County, Texas; Dow Parcperdue in Vermilion Parish, Louisiana; and Gladys McCall and Sweet Lake No. 1 well sites in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The contractors responsible for drilling and testing activities at the well sites have adequately implemented most of the mitigation measures described in each project's site-specific Environmental Assessment (EA). Exceptions include the lack of impermeable liners for drilling mud pits at the Dow Parcperdue, Gladys McCall, and Pleasant Bayou sites and the lack of a ring levee at the Pleasant Bayou site. Air and water quality and noise monitoring activities were not performed as strictly as outlined in the EAs. A review of the monitoring data collected to date indicates that no significant environmental degradation has occurred. This report recommends additional or future monitoring needs, especially with regard to soil contamination, subsidence, and microseismicity, and provides guidance for decommissioning.

This Reference Book contains a current copy of the Clean Water Act (Section 404) and the Rivers and Harbors Act (Sections 9 and 10) and those regulations that implement those sections of the statutes and appear to be most relevant to DOE activities. The document is provided to DOE and contractor staff for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as legal guidance. Updates that include important new requirements will be provided periodically. Questions concerning this Reference Book may be directed to Mark Petts, IH-231 (FTS 896-2609 or Commercial 202/586-2609).

This presentation provides information on California`s Title V operating permit programs for stationary sources mandated by the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. It covers background, applicability, regulatory history, requirements, and issues. In addition, specific information is provided on the progress of Title V implementation in California, including: the roles of implementing agencies, the status of district Title V programs, number and distribution of Title V sources, cost of Title V implementation, and highlights of Title V implementation in the State. The question and answer format is intended to facilitate easy access to specific information related to the Title V operating permit programs in California.

Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Recovery ActImplementation Matt Rogers shares his thoughts as the Recovery Act reaches a critical milestone -- the end of the 2010 fiscal year and the last day to obligation contract and grant funding under the Recovery Act. For more information about the Recovery Act at the Department of Energy: http://www.energy.gov/recovery Follow the Department of Energy! http://facebook.com/energygov http://twitter.com/energy

Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Recovery ActImplementation Matt Rogers shares his thoughts as the Recovery Act reaches a critical milestone -- the end of the 2010 fiscal year and the last day to obligation contract and grant funding under the Recovery Act. For more information about the Recovery Act at the Department of Energy: http://www.energy.gov/recovery Follow the Department of Energy! http://facebook.com/energygov http://twitter.com/energy

The following paragraphs summarize the progress of each research project funded under the WVU Cooperative Agreement during the third quarter of 1997 (July - September 1997). The projects are arranged according to their 1997 WVU task number. WVU Focus Area 1.0: Subsurface Contaminants, Containment and Remediation Task No. 1.1: Project discontinued. Task No. 1.2: Development of Standard Test Protocols and Barrier Design Models for Desiccation Barriers (K. Amininan & S. Ameri): A number of experiments were preformed this period to evaluate the ability of the dried sand-packs to act as a barrier to liquids. Water infiltration tests were done with a constant head, dispersing 80 ml of water, and by adding water in small increments. Results indicate that when the water is spilled over the sand-pack, it has the tendency to channel through the sand-pack, significantly reducing the capacity of the dried zone to retain liquid contaminants. This appears to be largely influenced by particle size. As the particle size is reduced, the capillary forces spread the water and prevent/delay channels from forming. The measured permeability values were in agreement with those measured with air. The water retention capacity and capillary rise were largely influenced by time and showed no sensitivity to channeling. The water retention capacity tests suggest the sand-packs can retain more water than the expected. Two sets of water infiltration and drying experiments were designed to evaluate the CAB?s ability to prevent spills from spreading. Ten ml of water was injected every 20 minutes and 80 ml of water was added at one time. When injected slowly, results showed the drying process to be similar to the original drying process. The second set indicted the drying process follows a slowly declining drying with no break through. Results also suggested that air flow through the sand-pack can remove water infiltration. The air flow appeared to prevent any water channeling and thus should cause lateral distribution of the water. The large tank that accommodates the sand bed and the necessary plumbing to simulate various well configurations was received. The monitoring equipment and the sensors are currently being installed. The experimental procedures for Phase II experiments are under further investigation and will be initiated upon installation of CATC and assembly of the monitoring system. Due to insufficient operating funds, the large scale experiments will not be done this year. Task No. 1.3: Technical Support - Development of Standard Test Protocols and Barrier Design Models for In Situ Formed Barriers (B. Overbey & D. Locke, BDM Federal): The Operating Permit Renewal Request for bench scale operations in the FETC B-17 building was submitted to the FETC Lab Safety Committee for approval on 8/14/97. A review of the revised NEPA documents prepared last year indicates that these documents are still applicable for the current work. The initial design and specifications for the CATC vessel were prepared. Construction of the CATC was initiated in early July, the vessel was received August 15, 1997, and on-site work was completed this quarter.

A triple acting radial seal used as an interstage seal assembly in a gas turbine engine, where the seal assembly includes an interstage seal support extending from a stationary inner shroud of a vane ring, the interstage seal support includes a larger annular radial inward facing groove in which an outer annular floating seal assembly is secured for radial displacement, and the outer annular floating seal assembly includes a smaller annular radial inward facing groove in which an inner annular floating seal assembly is secured also for radial displacement. A compliant seal is secured to the inner annular floating seal assembly. The outer annular floating seal assembly encapsulates the inner annular floating seal assembly which is made from a very low alpha material in order to reduce thermal stress.

A double acting bit holder that permits bits held in it to be resharpened during cutting action to increase energy efficiency by reducing the amount of small chips produced. The holder consist of: a stationary base portion capable of being fixed to a cutter head of an excavation machine and having an integral extension therefrom with a bore hole therethrough to accommodate a pin shaft; a movable portion coextensive with the base having a pin shaft integrally extending therefrom that is insertable in the bore hole of the base member to permit the moveable portion to rotate about the axis of the pin shaft; a recess in the movable portion of the holder to accommodate a shank of a bit; and a biased spring disposed in adjoining openings in the base and moveable portions of the holder to permit the moveable portion to pivot around the pin shaft during cutting action of a bit fixed in a turret to allow front, mid and back positions of the bit during cutting to lessen creation of small chip amounts and resharpen the bit during excavation use.

The major purposes of the FUA program are to reduce the importation of petroleum and increase the nation's use of indigenous energy resources; to conserve natural gas and petroleum and minimize their use as primary energy sources; to foster greater use of coal; to encourage the use of synthetic fuels; and to reduce the vulnerability of the US to energy-supply interruptions. Accomplishments in the implementation of the Act by DOE are described along with descriptions of legislation and major regulations, procedures, program effectiveness, and major implementation problems. Recommendations are summarized.

The ACTS Collection brings together a number of general-purpose computational tools that were developed by independent research projects mostly funded and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy. These tools tackle a number of common computational issues found in many applications, mainly implementation of numerical algorithms, and support for code development, execution and optimization. In this article, we introduce the numerical tools in the collection and their functionalities, present a model for developing more complex computational applications on top of ACTS tools, and summarize applications that use these tools. Lastly, we present a vision of the ACTS project for deployment of the ACTS Collection by the computational sciences community.

Environmental and health impacts are presented for activities associated with transient testing of nuclear fuel and material using two candidate test reactors. Transient testing involves irradiation of nuclear fuel or materials for short time-periods under high neutron flux rates. The transient testing process includes transportation of nuclear fuel or materials inside a robust shipping cask to a hot cell, removal from the shipping cask, pre-irradiation examination of the nuclear materials, assembly of an experiment assembly, transportation of the experiment assembly to the test reactor, irradiation in the test reactor, transport back to the hot cell, and post-irradiation examination of the nuclear fuel or material. The potential for environmental or health consequences during the transportation, examination, and irradiation actions are assessed for normal operations, off-normal (accident) scenarios, and transportation. Impacts to the environment (air, soil, and groundwater), are assessed during each phase of the transient testing process. This report documents the evaluation of potential consequences to the general public. This document supports the Environmental Assessment (EA) required by the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC Subsection 4321 et seq.).

To establish and implement Department of Energy (DOE) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) policies and procedures as prescribed by the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and under the authorities of Executive Order 12580 within the framework of the environmental programs established under doe 5400.1. Cancels DOE O 5480.14, DOE N 5400.4 and DOE N 5400.5. Canceled by DOE N 251.6.

Welcome to the 45th quarterly report on lessons learned in the NEPA process. We thank all those who participated in the NEPA 35 conference. You made it successful. We hope you are as inspired as we are by the spirit of NEPA Section 101and the challenge to improve the implementation of NEPA.

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments require the U.S. EPA to control mercury emission outputs from coal-burning power plants through implementation of MACT, Maximum Achievable Control Technology, standards. However, in 2003 ...

The U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 heralded in an era of more robust attention to environmental impacts resulting from larger scale federal projects. The number of other countries that have adopted NEPA's framework is evidence of the appeal of this type of environmental legislation. Mandates to review environmental impacts, identify alternatives, and provide mitigation plans before commencement of the project are at the heart of NEPA. Such project reviews have resulted in the development of a vast number of reports and large volumes of project-specific data that potentially can be used to better understand the components and processes of the natural environment and provide guidance for improved and efficient environmental protection. However, the environmental assessment (EA) or the more robust and intensive environmental impact statement (EIS) that are required for most major projects more frequently than not are developed to satisfy the procedural aspects of the NEPA legislation while they fail to provide the needed guidance for improved decision-making. While NEPA legislation recommends monitoring of project activities, this activity is not mandated, and in those situations where it has been incorporated, the monitoring showed that the EIS was inaccurate in direction and/or magnitude of the impact. Many reviews of NEPA have suggested that monitoring all project phases, from the design through the decommissioning, should be incorporated. Information gathered though a well-developed monitoring program can be managed in databases and benefit not only the specific project but would provide guidance how to better design and implement future activities designed to protect and enhance the natural environment. -- Highlights: • NEPA statutes created profound environmental protection legislative framework. • Contrary to intent, NEPA does not provide for definitive project monitoring. • Robust project monitoring is essential for enhanced environmental management. • Adaptive database framework is needed to accommodate project-monitoring data.

The Department of Energy (DOE) prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed A-01 outfall constructed wetlands project at the Savannah River site (SRS), located near aiken, South Carolina. The proposed action would include the construction and operation of an artificial wetland to treat effluent from the A-01 outfall located in A Area at SRS. The proposed action would reduce the outfall effluent concentrations in order to meet future outfall limits before these go into effect on October 1, 1999. This document was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended; the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for ImplementingNEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500--1508); and the DOE Regulations for ImplementingNEPA (10 CFR Part 1021).

This paper describes experiences at Los Alamos National Laboratory during the process of planning and executing decommissioning and decontamination activities on a number of properties constructed as part of the Manhattan project. Many of these buildings had been abandoned for many years and were in deteriorating condition, in addition to being contaminated with asbestos, lead based paints and high explosive residues. Due to the age and use of the structures they were evaluated against criteria for the National Register of Historic Places. This process is briefly reviewed, along with the results, as well as actions implemented as a result of the condition and safety of the structures. A number of the structures have been decontaminated and demolished. Planning is still ongoing for the renovation of one structure, and the photographic and drawing records of the properties is near completion.

This ``Environmental Protection Implementation Plan'' is intended to ensure that the environmental program objectives of Department of Energy Order 5400.1 are achieved at SNL/California. This document states SNL/California's commitment to conduct its operations in an environmentally safe and responsible manner. The ``Environmental Protection Implementation Plan'' helps management and staff comply with applicable environmental responsibilities.

Congress is currently debating amendments to the Clean Air Act which would strengthen and enhance the current Clean Air Act. The bill would guarantee a reduction of 10 million tons of sulfur dioxide from 1980 levels; would sharply reduce pollutants...

This report responds to a DOE-SR request to evaluate the impacts from implementation of the proposed Plutonium Recovery Limit (PRL) methodology. The PRL Methodology is based on cost minimization for decisions to discard or recover plutonium contained in scrap, residues, and other plutonium bearing materials. Implementation of the PRL methodology may result in decisions to declare as waste certain plutonium bearing materials originally considered to be a recoverable plutonium product. Such decisions may have regulatory impacts, because any material declared to be waste would immediately be subject to provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The decision to discard these materials will have impacts on waste storage, treatment, and disposal facilities. Current plans for the de-inventory of plutonium processing facilities have identified certain materials as candidates for discard based upon the economic considerations associated with extending the operating schedules for recovery of the contained plutonium versus potential waste disposal costs. This report evaluates the impacts of discarding those materials as proposed by the F Area De-Inventory Plan and compares the De-Inventory Plan assessments with conclusions from application of the PRL. The impact analysis was performed for those materials proposed as potential candidates for discard by the De-Inventory Plan. The De-Inventory Plan identified 433 items, containing approximately 1% of the current SRS Pu-239 inventory, as not appropriate for recovery as the site moves to complete the mission of F-Canyon and FB-Line. The materials were entered into storage awaiting recovery as product under the Department`s previous Economic Discard Limit (EDL) methodology which valued plutonium at its incremental cost of production in reactors. An application of Departmental PRLs to the subject 433 items revealed that approximately 40% of them would continue to be potentially recoverable as product plutonium.

In 1993, as the CWC ratification process was beginning, concerns arose that the complexity of integrating the CWC with national law could cause each nation to implement the Convention without regard to what other nations were doing, thereby causing inconsistencies among States as to how the CWC would be carried out. As a result, the author's colleagues and the author prepared the Manual for National Implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and presented it to each national delegation at the December 1993 meeting of the Preparatory Commission in The Hague. During its preparation, the Committee of CWC Legal Experts, a group of distinguished international jurists, law professors, legally-trained diplomats, government officials, and Parliamentarians from every region of the world, including Central Europe, reviewed the Manual. In February 1998, they finished the second edition of the Manual in order to update it in light of developments since the CWC entered into force on 29 April 1997. The Manual tries to increase understanding of the Convention by identifying its obligations and suggesting methods of meeting them. Education about CWC obligations and available alternatives to comply with these requirements can facilitate national response that are consistent among States Parties. Thus, the Manual offers options that can strengthen international realization of the Convention's goals if States Parties act compatibly in implementing them. Equally important, it is intended to build confidence that the legal issues raised by the Convention are finite and addressable. They are now nearing competition of an internet version of this document so that interested persons can access it electronically and can view the full text of all of the national implementing legislation it cites. The internet address, or URL, for the internet version of the Manual is http: //www.cwc.ard.gov. This paper draws from the Manual. It comparatively addresses approximately thirty implementing issues, showing how various States Parties have enacted measures that are responsive to CWC obligations. It is intended to highlight the issues that States Parties must address and to identify trends among States Parties that might be useful to States that have not yet made crucial decisions as to how to resolve key matters. At various points in the text, country names are listed in parenthesis to identify pieces of national legislation that demonstrate the point in the text. It should not be inferred that nations not listed have not addressed the point or have taken a different position. In some cases, a nation's position is explained in somewhat more depth to give specific detail to an assertion in the text. Attached to this paper is a chart which illustrates how States Parties in the Central European region as well as the United States respond to the issues raised. Obviously, in preparing such a chart, many subtle provisions in national legislation must be simplified. The point of the chart is to portray, on a few pages, the major trends of legislation.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-343), which was signed into law on October 3, 2008, incorporates EIEA2008 in Division B. Provisions in EIEA2008 that require funding appropriations to be implemented, whose impact is highly uncertain or that require further specification by federal agencies or Congress, are not included in Annual Energy Outlook 2009.

This Reference Book contains a current copy of the Clean Water Act (Section 404) and the Rivers and Harbors Act (Sections 9 and 10) and those regulations that implement those sections of the statutes and appear to be most relevant to DOE activities. The document is provided to DOE and contractor staff for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as legal guidance. Updates that include important new requirements will be provided periodically. Questions concerning this Reference Book may be directed to Mark Petts, IH-231 (FTS 896-2609 or Commercial 202/586-2609).

This Environmental Protection Implementation Plan is intended to ensure that the environmental program objectives of Department of Energy Order 5400.1 are achieved at SNL/California. This document states SNL/California`s commitment to conduct its operations in an environmentally safe and responsible manner. The Environmental Protection Implementation Plan helps management and staff comply with applicable environmental responsibilities. SNL is committed to operating in full compliance with the letter and spirit of applicable environmental laws, regulations, and standards. Furthermore, SNL/California strives to go beyond compliance with legal requirements by making every effort practical to reduce impacts to the environment to levels as low as reasonably achievable.

This Environmental Protection Implementation Plan is intended to ensure that the environmental program objectives of Department of Energy Order 5400.1 are achieved at SNL/California. This document states SNL/California`s commitment to conduct its operations in an environmentally safe and responsible manner. The Environmental Protection Implementation Plan helps management and staff comply with applicable environmental responsibilities. This report focuses on the following: notification of environmental occurrences; general planning and reporting; special programs and plans; environmental monitoring program; and quality assurance and data verification.

A fast acting inlet guide vane (IGV) system was developed for the model Siemens V94.2 gas turbine (GT). This system enables the GT to perform larger and faster load changes in the case of electrical grid disturbances. Disturbances in electrical grids are caused by an unbalance between actual power generation and power consumption resulting in grid frequency deviations. In order to reduce such deviations, it is desirable for a GT (connected to the grid), to increase/reduce load as fast as required. This task is achieved by the fast responding IGV system: Basically, the occurring grid frequency deviation is monitored by the IGV system. Depending on this deviation, the compressor air mass flow is adapted to the changing fuel mass flow (which is set approximately proportional to the frequency deviation by the GT controller). The fast IGV actuator plays a main role in this dynamic response, allowing the vanes to open/close very fast. Tests performed on Poolbeg site (Ireland) proved safe and rapid load changes with a typical load ramp of 50 MW within 3 sec.

This Guide was prepared to aid in the development, planning, and implementation of requirements and activities during the transition phase at Department of Energy (DOE) facilities that have been declared or are forecast to become excess to any future mission requirements.

The Bioenergy Technologies Office carries out technology research, development, and deployment through an ongoing process of planning and analysis, implementation, and review. This Web page includes links to documents that support and document the program management process, and the results and public benefits that derive from it.

We show that, through the approach of quantum adiabatic evolution, all of the usual quantum gates can be implemented efficiently, yielding running time of order O(1). This may be considered as a useful alternative to the standard quantum computing approach, which involves quantum gates transforming quantum states during the computing process.

Under the 10{sup th} Malaysian Plan, the government is expecting the renewable energy to contribute approximately 5.5% to the total electricity generation by the year 2015, which amounts to 98MW. One of the initiatives to ensure that the target is achievable was to establish the Sustainable Energy Development Authority of Malaysia. SEDA is given the authority to administer and manage the implementation of the feed-in tariff (FiT) mechanism which is mandated under the Renewable Energy Act 2011. The move to establish SEDA is commendable and the FiT seems to be attractive but there is a need to create awareness on the implementation of the solar electricity generating system (SEGS). In Malaysia, harnessing technologies related to solar energy resources have great potential for implementation. However, the main issue that plagues the implementation of SEGS is the intermittent nature of this source of energy. The availability of sunlight is during the day time, and there is a need for electrical energy storage system, so that there is electricity available during the night time as well. The meteorological condition such as clouds, haze and pollution affects the SEGS as well. The PV based SEGS is seems to be promising electricity generating system that can contribute towards achieving the 5.5% target and will be able to minimize the negative effects of utilizing fossil fuels for electricity generation on the environment. Malaysia is committed to Kyoto Protocol, which emphasizes on fighting global warming by achieving stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. In this paper, the technical aspects of the implementation of optimum SEGS is discussed, especially pertaining to the positioning of the PV panels.

During the past decades there has been a continuous growth in the number of physical and societal problems that have been successfully studied and solved by means of computational modeling and simulation. Distinctively, a number of these are important scientific problems ranging in scale from the atomic to the cosmic. For example, ionization is a phenomenon as ubiquitous in modern society as the glow of fluorescent lights and the etching on silicon computer chips; but it was not until 1999 that researchers finally achieved a complete numerical solution to the simplest example of ionization, the collision of a hydrogen atom with an electron. On the opposite scale, cosmologists have long wondered whether the expansion of the Universe, which began with the Big Bang, would ever reverse itself, ending the Universe in a Big Crunch. In 2000, analysis of new measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation showed that the geometry of the Universe is flat, and thus the Universe will continue expanding forever. Both of these discoveries depended on high performance computer simulations that utilized computational tools included in the Advanced Computational Testing and Simulation (ACTS) Toolkit. The ACTS Toolkit is an umbrella project that brought together a number of general purpose computational tool development projects funded and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). These tools, which have been developed independently, mainly at DOE laboratories, make it easier for scientific code developers to write high performance applications for parallel computers. They tackle a number of computational issues that are common to a large number of scientific applications, mainly implementation of numerical algorithms, and support for code development, execution and optimization. The ACTS Toolkit Project enables the use of these tools by a much wider community of computational scientists, and promotes code portability, reusability, reduction of duplicate efforts, and tool maturity. This paper presents a brief introduction to the functionality available in ACTS.

AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed off Energy.gov. Are you sure you wantJoin us for #SpaceWeek JoinMission Mission

This research was designed to examine patterns related to quality of Co-teach implementation, as evidenced by Co-teacher responses to the Colorado Assessment of Co-teaching (CO-ACT), and the usefulness of the CO-ACT in serving second purpose...

National Construction Safety Team Act Annual Report Fiscal Year 2007 Introduction In October 2002, the President signed into law the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act (P.L. 107 National Construction Safety Teams for deployment after events causing the failure of a building

National Construction Safety Team Act Annual Report Fiscal Year 2008 Summary This annual report to Congress for FY 2008 is required by the National Construction Safety Team Act. NIST completed its federal report. The ICC Codes are widely adopted and used as the basis for state and local construction codes

BOSTON- At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dan Nocera talks about Sun Catalytix, the next generation of solar energy, and ARPA-E funding through the Recovery Act. To learn about more ARPA-E projects through the Recovery Act: http://arpa-e.energy.gov/FundedProjects.aspx

experts, technical writers, and subject matter experts, who will not continue on the MSE team. These experts fill a need when the management system is initiated that is completed during the implementation phase. Select MSE Team After... represent the most effective and efficient practice. By including technical writers and subject matter experts on the team, procedure/instruction writing will be hastened and enhanced. SYSTEM APPRAISAL During the system appraisal phase, the MSE 2000...

0 Assessing Implementation of Sustainability at UiO Grønt UiO S u s t a i n a b i l i t y i n R e sustainability commitment among universities and proposed Best Green University Practices in 2010. It presents the current status of UiO Environmental Sustainability. #12;1 If you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it

, or Health Care Reform). University Human Resources is making many changes to the UVa Health Plan in response even as the health care landscape changes. We also want to give you a heads-up on some of these changes and hospitals as the current health programs. · Tax-free savings to pay for eligible health care expenses today

Welcome to the 58th quarterly report on lessons learned in the NEPA process. We have been very busy addressing our NEPA responsibilities arising from the recovery act as well as the new policies of the obama administration. In this issue of the Lessons Learned Quarterly Report (LLQR), we share ideas and experiences that will foster an improved and expedited NEPA compliance process.

It is imperative to ensure compliance of the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. In particular, compliance with the waste characterization requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its implementing regulation found at 40 CFR Parts 262,264 and 265 for hazardous and mixed wastes, as well as those of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, and the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, as amended, and their implementing regulations found at 40 CFR Parts 191 and 194 for non-mixed radioactive wastes, are often difficult to ensure at the operational level. For example, where a regulation may limit a waste to a certain concentration, this concentration may be difficult to measure. For example, does the definition of transuranic waste (TRU) as 100 nCi/grain of alpha-emitting transuranic isotopes per gram of waste mean that the radioassay of a waste must show a reading of 100 plus the sampling and measurement error for the waste to be a TRU waste? Although the use of acceptable knowledge to characterize waste is authorized by statute, regulation and DOE Orders, its implementation is similarly beset with difficulty. When is a document or documents sufficient to constitute acceptable knowledge? What standard can be used to determine if knowledge is acceptable for waste characterization purposes? The inherent conflict between waste characterization regulatory requirements and their implementation in the real world, and the resolution of this conflict, will be discussed.

The Genetic Privacy Act is a proposal for federal legislation. The Act is based on the premise that genetic information is different from other types of personal information in ways that require special protection. Therefore, to effectively protect genetic privacy unauthorized collection and analysis of individually identifiable DNA must be prohibited. As a result, the premise of the Act is that no stranger should have or control identifiable DNA samples or genetic information about an individual unless that individual specifically authorizes the collection of DNA samples for the purpose of genetic analysis, authorized the creation of that private information, and has access to and control over the dissemination of that information.